Athletes

Americans sure know how to get riled up. Every week we find some new, mundane thing to get upset about. This week it was Pittsburgh Steelers Running Back Rashard Mendenhall’s tweets about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Mendenhall tweeted his concern about celebrating death and alluded to his disbelief that planes alone took down the World Trade Center on 9/11. He later clarified his tweets with this blog post. As a professional speechwriter and media coach, I wouldn’t have advised him to clarify in long form, in particular, after looking at his tweets which were pretty benign. However, his clarification was thoughtful and pretty touching even if you disagree.

Unfortunately, a very bored sports media got hold of the story and with the help of the mainstream media they proceeded to squeeze every drop of relevancy they could out of it—which is quite a feat since there wasn’t much to begin with. First of all, Mendenhall is not an elected official nor is he a pundit or other expert whose opinions influence domestic or international thought or policy. Secondly, in the scheme of “popular” National Football League players, Mendenhall is far from top tier.

The media’s, and subsequently the public’s, reaction to Mendenhall’s tweets is an embarrassing display of how “outrage-driven” today’s media is as well as how aggressively it seeks search engine optimization. Web content managers know that the NFL is in the midst of the a lockout, twitter is a popular social media network, and Osama Bin Laden was the most searched term of the week. NFL + Twitter + Osama Bin Laden = high search engine results for articles on Mendenhall’s tweets.

ESPN took things a step further and held a special “twitter edition” of “Outside the Lines” in which they discussed athletes on twitter. No surprise that there was nary a mention of the network’s incessant promotion of the story for the sake of clicks and ratings. The media sold this story under the umbrella of “yet another athlete says something really stupid.” But the reality is that Mendenhall’s tweets were not stupid, they simply reflected an unpopular opinion.

Actually, I’d correct that and say his opinion was unwanted more than it was unpopular. And reactions were based on the media’s narrative and not what Mendenhall actually tweeted. A perfect storm for a public full of lazy headline readers. The general consensus seemed to be “Why would he tweet his opinion when he knew the media would run with it and people would get upset?”  I always find positions like that to be odd, because it treats the media and the pubic (and the individual making the statement) as though they are not in control of their own emotions and reactions. It also lets the media off the hook for its blatant issue-baiting.

There was absolutely no reason for such a strong and negative reaction to one non-political man’s opinion. It’s almost as if people were outraged because they believed they were SUPPOSED to be. In searching most of the commentary on this—whether tweets or article comments, people mainly seemed to understand why “other” hypothetical people were upset but weren’t actually upset themselves.

Apparently, we’ve come to a point in the media cycle where we’re angry at people for the potential their comments have to offend rather than because their comments were actually offensive.  If that doesn’t tell you how far the media has fallen into the gutter, nothing will.

I have to point out that over the years many in the African American community have lamented the fact that black athletes aren’t politically active. The argument is that we need them to be given the fact that they hold such a large amount of the community’s wealth. The reaction to Mendenhall is a very good example of why many athletes choose to quietly support charities for children rather than taking a bigger risk and vocally attaching themselves to adult issues which tend to be more controversial.

Now that Mendenhall has been fired from his deal with Champion, which, in its statement made NO reference to what exactly Mendenhall said that prompted the firing, you can see that expressing any opinion can be detrimental to players’ livelihoods. And with football players having such short careers, they can’t risk that kind of financial harm just to exercise their first amendment right.

I believe that any one in the public eye should use care with their words; however, the fact is that in the current media environment it is very hard to tell what the media will take and turn into a story at any given time.  I keep hearing people say Mendenhall should have practiced better PR, but even public relations professionals are toughing out the new sillier media landscape when it comes to gauging the reaction of the media and public to any given item.

Plus a slow news day can produce any number of asinine stories that on a heavier day wouldn’t be a blip on the radar. And now that sports media has become just as 24/7 as the rest of the media, athletes are subject to much of the same “trolling” for comments by the journalists that other celebrities have long submitted to. Yes, sports reporters are TROLLS now, and although I’m sure some reporters love it, If sports journalism is reporting on Brett Favre’s penis and who tweeted what I’ll pass indefinitely.

Freedom of speech will always be accompanied by consequences, and Mendenhall must face that fact just like any other public figure.  However, we have to acknowledge that there is a concerted effort on the part of the media to create controversy where there is none. The only surefire way for public figures to avoid such a backlash at one point or another is to never become successful in the first place.

I’d like to believe that at some point the public will develop outrage fatigue and stop allowing the media to drum up faux controversy, but it doesn’t look like that will be happening any time soon.

There is no issue that gets me riled up than the subject of bad PR people. There are bad, incompetent, inferior people in every industry and every walk of life…but I think what bothers me about bad PR people is that they’re so easy to spot. And whether they’re good or bad, they can often be loud about it, which, by default, is bad.

I remember a long time ago when Lizzie Grubman was the go-to PR person for the stars. This was long before I knew much PR at all. But I do remember many in the industry publicly lamenting that Lizzie was breaking with tradition by basically becoming a public figure herself. For those who don’t know, Grubman was involved in a car crash that injured 16 people and she subsequently served 90 days in jail.

But the fact that everyone knew who Grubman was prior to the crash marked a change in the industry. PR people are supposed to behind the scenes. They’re not supposed to be photographed on the red carpet with their clients and they’re certainly not supposed to be the one in need of crisis communications. I’m not blaming Grubman for the Jonathan Chebans of the world because in our celebrity obsessed culture all sorts of people become celebrities by association–that’s why they didn’t need any Wives for Basketball Wives.

My Grubman anecdote was to make the point that it hasn’t always been that way and it doesn’t have to be that way. In practicality, PR people who want to be stars can be very good at certain aspects of their jobs but can also become a nuisance to others. For example, as your PR person starts to social climb, you can guess there’s going to be all sorts of people at the level YOU wish to be at that wonder why this person keeps @ replying them on twitter as though they are best buds when they met ONCE at a dinner where the PR person was WORKING.

The biggest problem with the PR-as-star phenomenon is that it attracts all sorts of know-nothings to the business seeking to be “in the scene.” In particular, I see a lot of athletes falling prey. All it takes is some fast talking, a little name dropping, and a few promises and next thing you know you’re paying for events that don’t need to happen, a web site that serves no purpose, and s permanent person on retainer who doesn’t know what your goals are and has no plan to get you there or respond to emails with fruitful opportunities.

And why hire someone to manage your social media presence whose timeline is full of inspirational quotes, shout outs to YOU and other clients, and ass-kissy retweets of celebrities they could only dream to meet. When you hire a PR person take care in making sure they’ve come into the business with serious intentions and are informed about the technology they’re seeking to manage on your behalf. For example, many traditional PR people don’t know much about Web 2.0. Many social media folks don’t know much about event planning. And many crisis communications experts aren’t equipped to handle PR plans for the long term–only for the duration of a problem.

Pretty soon, a television show about the life of Washington DC insider and PR maven Judy Smith will air. Who is Judy Smith? THAT’S RIGHT! You don’t know who Judy Smith is. That’s because Smith has worked QUIETLY behind the scenes for years, coaching and handling crisis communications for everyone from former blue-dress wearing Clinton White House intern Monica Lewinsky to NFL player Michael Vick.

Behind-the-scenes doesn’t mean a person is not connected. I think some people seek PR people who look to be a part of whatever world they want to enter because they believe it’s a sign that they can connect them. PR people are absolutely supposed to have connections but be adept and not confuse “meeting” someone with “knowing” someone with “being connected” to someone.

I know that it’s difficult for clients to make an assessment about whether or not they’ve hired a person who actually knows what they’re doing. Whether you suspect your PR person is seeking the limelight or not, here are some questions to think about:

1. Did you discuss your goals with your PR rep?
2. If you’ve defined a goal, do you hav e a communications plan?
3. if you have a communications plan, do you understand it? Does it include tactics and explanations for why those tactics are recommended?
4. Do you know what your responsibilities are in the plan?
5. Does that plan include social media? Blogs?
6. What goals have they achieved with other clients? Can you speak with those clients?
7. If you agreed that a web site should be developed, have you been receiving analytics reports on the site? How often is it updated and under what circumstances? What is the goal of the site?
8. Has your PR rep discussed media training with you?
9. If you’ve retained PR for an event, do you know how much media coverage was received?
10. What is your PR person’s policy on responding to emails? Within 48 hours?

Overall, not completely understanding the world of PR isn’t a reason not to be actively involved in your communications planning.

**This post has been updated to include ESPN’s response at the end.

ESPN is planning to tap into the women’s sports market with its new ESPN Woman’s “online brand” (which I’m pretty sure is fancy way of saying ‘web site’) But this effort, as it is envisioned, will fail miserably for one simple reason—all women sports fans are not the same.

When I first heard about ESPNW I had visions in my head of various muscular male athletes with their shirts off, links to girl-versions of sports paraphernalia, and an emphasis on female writers and on-air personalities. Unfortunately, ESPN has no such thing in mind. Their plan appears to be to have a web site dedicated to women’s sports that specifically caters to the female fans of those sports.

But who watches women’s sports?

The NY Times cited research from various league offices that when it comes to watching men’s sports “women make up 44 percent of football fans, 45 percent of baseball fans and 36 percent of professional men’s basketball fans, according to research conducted by the sports leagues. During the 2009 season, an average of 4.2 million women watched the N.F.L. on ESPN, according to the network.”

The fact that I couldn’t find numbers for how many women (or men) who watch women’s sports is quite telling (if someone has those numbers, please send!).  You’d have to assume the amount of women who watch women’s sports with any regularity is much, much smaller than the amount that watches male sports. Overall, women make up a quarter of ESPN’s viewership—but that doesn’t mean all of those women are committed to the main brand.

With ESPNW, ESPN is targeting a niche within a niche. For this reason, I think ESPNW will—if it stays around at all—end up being a sort of fitness and health centered version of popular women’s online magazine Jezebel all but abandoning the sports angle altogether. In this scenario, they’re more likely attract the Self/Shape magazine trying-to-lose-those-last-10-pounds-and-simultaneously-improve-my-body-image audience rather than the avid female women’s sports fan they claim to be targeting.

To be successful without caving into stereotypical women’s magazine topics, they’d have to be focused on making ESPNW appealing to men as well. I guess ESPN has officially given up on any plan to make women’s sports more appealing to men either by increasing its coverage of the games or focusing a little more on female athlete human interest stories or some other tactic. I think this is sad–with some creativity ESPN could easily incorporate more women’s sports stories and woman-friendly angles for male sports into their programming that would appeal to women without segregating the content or alienating men.

I do hope ESPN realizes there’s a difference between content that appeals to women sports fans and content that draws in women athletes and content that appeals to female fans of women’s sports. Though all 3 groups may have overlapping membership, they are three different demographics. To lump them all together makes me think that ESPN doesn’t really understand how difficult it would be to create brand loyalty with all of them successfully.

** From Keri Potts at ESPN:

espnW will serve former and current female athletes as well as female sports fans – as in NFL, NBA, college and women’s sports. It is not a site or singular product for only women’s sports fans, but rather, women sports fans. The NYT writer did a great job explaining both sides, but we said women sports fans, not “women’s sports fans.” espnW’s .com presence will provide coverage of all their favorite sports and teams while offering advice and information unique to female athletes, especially women who just graduated college and are moving on from collegiate athletics.

I definitely want to thank ESPN for reaching out to me and providing a response. Great way to get your message out.

The Eagles gave Michael Vick a chance at a fresh start in the NFL after he was released from prison over a year ago. They did so to a chorus of boos and judgement by many in the media and the public. Still, Vick was given a chance to play behind McNabb and filled in for McNabb a few times with varying degrees of success.

As a long time Eagles fan I was angry, sad, and shocked when Donovan McNabb was traded to the Redskins and original backup QB Kevin Kolb was given a contract extension, a franchise tag and, obviously the starting QB role. What the Eagles were calling the Kolb Era, I referred to as the Kolb Error. It wasn’t that I wanted Vick to start, I wanted Reid to go and McNabb to stay.

My amateur sports analysis is that the Eagles may not have signed Kevin Kolb to a 12 million + extension if they thought there was a chance in hell it was safe to make Michael Vick a starter–for skill reasons but mostly for public relations reasons. The tone of public opinion on Vick has been mostly negative, in particular among people who aren’t big fans of football, a demographic the NFL is trying hard not to alienate for the sake of advertisers. I have to believe that this fear of public opinion is why a team like the Raiders would sign former Redskins QB Jason Campbell (whom they have now benched) and not Michael Vick.

What a difference 18 months makes. Who would have known that it would only take a game and half of mediocre (not ‘horrible’) play on Kolb’s part to turn fans and sports enthusiasts  into a mob that all but ridiculed the Eagles decision to make Kolb number 1. And more than that, who would have thought the Eagles would be facing a PR nightmare for NOT starting him?

Public opinion is a fickle beast, and this is a situation that could have easily gone in the other direction. Fortunately for Vick, his biggest detractors have moved on and aren’t really keeping up with his latest activities. Vick participated in a reality show last year that humanized him in the eyes of sports fans, and often that’s all it takes to be forgiven.

I’m sure PETA will release a statement expressing sadness that Vick is being in any way allowed to move on with his life given his past actions, but it will have zero effect on Vick’s reputation going forward or how the fans receive him in the stadium. There will also be grumblings if Vick shows flashes of his old self when he consistently struggled to find receivers. Still, Vick wins in this case and the Eagles lose by continuing their streak of mistreating their most loyal players. [Okay that's not media analysis that's my biased amateur sports reporter opinion].

Even if you’re not a sports fan you probably heard this week about the NFL’s New York Jets (and coaches, apparently) being sexually suggestive and rude to the lady sports reporter pictured to the left, Ms. Ines Sainz.

According to reports, things got rowdy with coaches intentionally throwing passes to help players bump into her. And once she entered the locker room, the story goes that Nose Tackle Kris Jenkins essentially said it’s the Jets lockeroom and they can catcall if they want to.

Lots of the conversation surrounding this story has been on whether or not Sainz was dressed appropriately and whether or not her dress justified the Jets’ crass behavior.

Let me help you.

No she wasn’t dressed appropriately and no that doesn’t justify their awful and grossly unprofessional behavior.

But here’s the greater question that comes up any time there is a minority person whose rights may have been violated: Is this the person you want to make an example of how unfair things are? I mean, looking at that picture is this the woman we want to say “Hey, look at how hard woman reporters have it?”

Not because she’s done anything wrong, but for the same reason Rosa Parks was chosen to be the face of the civil rights movement. Sadly, some arguments just go over better when they have the “right face.” I think it’s called “PR strategy.” Saying this woman is a victim of sexism isn’t gonna go over well with the menfolk or many womenfolk.

Here’s a gem on Sainz from USA Today.

TV Azteca promotes Sainz both as a journalist and as a model. The network’s website includes photo collections of Sainz and has an article in its “Bad Girls” section headlined, “Inez Sainz, the perfect woman.” The article describes her as intelligent and having a good sense of humor, and is accompanied by a photo of her in a bikini.

She has covered the NFL before, including several Super Bowls. At a media event before the Super Bowl in 2009, she measured the bicep of Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Steve Breaston. The year before, she asked Patriots quarterback Tom Brady what it would take for New England to beat the Jets. The Pats actually were playing the Giants.

Professional athletes and coaches constantly come into contact with women who have some serious assets. Sainz is probably not the most beautiful or most well endowed woman those players and coaches had seen that day, and certainly not that week or month.

I find it hard to believe they were genuinely THAT ethralled with her looks. And obviously, this type of behavior isn’t happening on a daily basis. I think they saw her clothing, knew her history, and took her about as seriously as she appears to take her job.

Basically, they bullied her because they perceived her as powerless and meaningless and underserving of respect. Certainly their perception and the way they dealt with it is rooted in sexism and machismo and immaturity. If a reporter is dressed unprofessionally, she should be reported as a distraction concern–not harassed.

My question: Is it sexist and unfeminist and blaming the victim to say the Jets are morons but Jesus Christ dress more professionally and learn football? Can we ask her to dress professionally while simultaneously to the Jets being fined and learning the error of their ways? Or, is the only sensitive and evolved way to approach to say “The Jets are morons,” </sentence> since her clothing and professionalism shouldn’t be related to the players’ treatment of her?

Boy, if ever there was a time to use the phrase “Women like you make it hard for women like me…”

So what do y’all think? Am I guilty of blaming the victim?

I’ve always wanted my own talk show…so I figured, I’ll just go ahead and create one.  Each week I will recap the past 10 days in under 10 minutes. I’ll also be interviewing various people in a segment called “10 Minutes With [insert guests name].” I’m excited about it.

Episode 1 Appears Below: